11/14/2022 0 Comments Tyranny of the minority![]() (Neither have the Republicans, but they lost less power than the Democrats did.)Ī rule binding all House Republicans to the will of the caucus would effectively put 48 Republican voters in charge of the election of the next speaker. The Democrats in the Senate haven’t been as powerful since the rule changed. It moved that power away from the minority - on any given bill, that could be a partisan minority, a geographic minority, whatever - and to the presiding officer, who sets the agenda for the Senate. Dan Patrick and others argued that a Republican state shouldn’t have Democrats dictating policy and finally convinced the Senate to change the rule. The Senate Democrats clung to some of their power under a minority-empowering rule that allowed one-third of the Senate to block consideration of legislation. House lawmakers weren’t going to elect a Democrat to the top job, but they weren’t going to elect a fire-breathing conservative, either. Straus was first elected speaker in 2009, when the balance of power was 76 Republicans and 74 Democrats. The Republicans have already edged the Democrats out of some of the clout they retained even after becoming the minority party. This caucus idea is in the platform of the Texas GOP, and it’s easy to understand the frustration of a GOP that fought its way into the majority in the Texas Legislature (the Republicans have had the majority in the Senate since 1997, in the House since 2003) only to find that divisions within the party have kept the Democrats and coalition politics alive in the state. The Democrats, in particular, would have no investment in the political leadership of the House if the leader was chosen by a Republican bloc: That’s a recipe for stalemates. If you’re comparison-shopping, it's a move that would make the state House more like the federal House, which already relies on parties to choose their leaders. That seems contrary to the name of the institution. Whichever GOP faction controls, the next speaker could be “representing” a House where 102 members - the rest of the Republicans and the 55 Democrats - wanted someone else in the top spot. Those two factions rarely find themselves on the same side, making the establishment Republicans the dealmakers in the House.Ĭhanging the rules, however, could put someone other than an establishment Republican like Straus in the speaker’s chair. The most powerful group in the House is the establishment Republicans, because they can almost always find a majority by joining with the social conservatives on their right or with the moderate Democrats to their left. It would be a significant shift of power, too. A rule binding all Republicans to the will of the caucus would effectively put those 48 Republican voters in charge of the whole election. But a candidate needs only 48 votes to win in the 95-member Republican Caucus. It takes 76 votes to win the speaker’s race - a majority of the House. #Tyranny of the minority fullIf Straus seeks re-election, he’d be playing to a different electorate next time - the Republican Caucus instead of the full House. But it’s not exactly a show of support, either. Publisher: Temple University Press,U.S.It’s not a direct shot at House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio - in fact, he went to the meeting, walked out with a smile on his face and went on being speaker. It offers a unique explanation of why and how special interests dominate American national politics. Demonstrating the wide applicability of the theory, the book traces politiciansa behavior on a wide range of issues, including the Cuban trade embargo, the extension of hate crimes legislation to protect gays and lesbians, the renewal of the assault weapons ban, abortion politics, and Congressas battle to recognize the Armenian genocide. Tyranny of the Minority provides a aunified theory of representation,a based in social psychology and supported by extensive analyses of legislatorsa voting behavior, that explains how citizensa knowledge and participation affects candidatesa behaviour in campaigns and legislatorsa behaviour in Congress. Why do politicians frequently heed the preferences of small groups of citizens over those of the general public? Breaking new theoretical ground, Benjamin Bishin explains how the desires of small groups, which he calls asubconstituencies,a often trump the preferences of much larger groups. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |